User talk:Walter/Archive1

I am sorry you feel so disillusioned. You should not I think. Some steps were climbed toward our integration in the global scheme. When I look back, 6 months ago, and I see the evolution, I feel good. You are right that's far from the best, but as long as it is not static, prospectives are good.
Do not feel the lack of answer as a personal blow, better try than not. Maybe it was not presented the right way, maybe not clear, or maybe it was not the right time, maybe some felt it was not a good option, not very much the wiki way. Also, some gave propositions at the same time, news...Maybe another list is a list too much also.
That is also maybe one of the problem of the mailing lists, you see a message, you want to give it some thought, put it aside, and after 24 hours, it is burried under a 100 messages, forgotten. I think a talk page would have been interesting beforehand. We need a central system of communication - like the mailing list - but where threads can be easily discarded or explored, searched. This bears more chance than the actual system.
Do not resent the lack of answers, it happens. There's no hurry maybe.

I see in the history that this is from 01:05 Nov 29, 2002 . . 80.14.137.28; i have not noticed it. see user:giskart

Thanks for the support. I am now even more disillusioned in the "international" policy of Wikipedia than ever. I will now only focus on my home wikipedia and stop to care about the international wikipedia.

About the mailing list; the main idea for again a other mailing list was to have a list for only serious, imporant postings so you do not have do digg true the many postings of the others lists.

About the formatting where threads can be easily discarded or explored, searched. That can now. I have setup to wikipedia-mailing list to usenet gateway. You can read, sarch and post postings to the lists like it where a newsgroups. See http://intlwiki.wikipedia.beGiskart 08:53 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

I thought you had read it...but were too disillusionned to care to answer...sorry it didnot cheer you up a little bit at that time. I feel disillusionned too, but not for the same reasons than you I think. We are not very important, better get used to it, and try to take care of our little world. Mine needs so much care that I am not even sure it is worth.

I am deeply saddened by your unhappiness, but can't help you much, because I unfortunately disagree with your propositions very often :-( For example, I am not very happy with the "vote for deletion" page made so proeminent on the recent changes. But well....

please never unprotect one of the HTML templates. Because these pages are directly shown as HTML on the live www.wikipedia.org site, this is a huge security risk and allows people to insert malicious JavaScript code to steal people's passwords, etc. It's been reprotected. Kate is working on an alternative solution, please stay tuned.--Eloquence 22:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Eloquence, Please see first Talk:Www.wikipedia.org_portal#change_to_Catherine_style . This is not a wild unprotection. I have informed Catherine and GeorgeStepanek about the unprotection so the can work on the new portal for some hours. I have put contact information on the talk page and have checked what was going on every 5 a 10 minutes. Catherine and George have fixt the new portal and the page whould be reprotected by me a few minutes afther Kate did it. --Walter 23:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Walter, I know you're active on nl - I heard from a user that nl also has a paper similar to the Wikipedia Signpost, but it's not listed in the "other languages" section like some other papers are (for example, German paper), and I can't seem to find it. Can you provide me with a link if it exists? Thanks. Flcelloguy(A note?) 22:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no signpost on nl. There some pages in that direction but the are not very often updated. But now we are again in a period that there are more or less updated.

I think w:nl:Wikipedia:Mededelingen is the best page to link to. If you are involved with the Wikipedia EN Signpost and have news that you can not use because it is not relevant for EN but can be for Wikimedia global please inform me. I am writing Wikizine , with some other users. Thanks, --Walter 22:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The reason I was asking is because Brian0918 mentioned something about a Dutch-version of Wikipedia Signpost but couldn't provide a link.

Yes, I am involved with the Signpost - I know you emailed our email address earlier and our editor-in-chief, Ral315, told you to keep an eye on our tip-line. Is Wikizine available on-wiki? I've brought up the idea of having the Signpost available on email with Ral, but so far no success. From your experiences, do you find having the 'zine on email better than on the project? Also, I've perused some of your past issues - it looks like we share some content. Would you be interested in perhaps linking to us for news that we both report, or perhaps starting a collaboration? Of course, these are my personal views and would require Ral's and Michael Snow's approval first. Let me know what you think. Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy(A note?) 00:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Would you mind notifying me when you reply so I don't have to check this page? Thanks.

Yes, the signpost is one of my most important places to find news. I do not know about translations of Wikizine for EN. There is a translation in zh:Wikipedia:维基简讯 Chinese.

Isn't Wikizine written in English? I checked the list and the issues were in English. (Flcelloguy)

Yes, Wikizine is in English. Or at least in something that is supposed to be English. The translations if the exist are the work of the readers. And that is a good thing. But the readers have to do it if the like to have a translation. --Walter 12:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

For Wikizine I think that distribution by email is the best way. Normay only one email a week on a mailinglist. Low traffic email people read. But "The Wikipedia Signpost" is not the same like Wikizine. Other public, other concept, other way of distribution. Walter

True; the Signpost definitely needs to be published on the project, but I've always thought that having an email distribution would make it easier for readers. As you noticed earlier, we added an email feature to receive comments and suggestions a month or two ago. (Flcelloguy)

So far I understand it is The Signpost about news of WikipediaEN for WikipediaEN. With some other news sometimes, but the core news reporting is about the English Wikipedia. Also it is for all users. It makes sense to do it like it is now. It seems to work. You could also make a email version of the Signpost as a additional distribution channel. Some are going to use it. You can use a special list for it or ask on WikiEN-l if there are no objections that you post it there also. But "The Wikipedia Signpost" email edition would be extra. With like it is now you have a good formula. Walter

Yes, I agree - see above. The Signpost focuses mainly on issues that pertain to en, but naturally, some topics that occur in meta and other Wikipedias are mentioned. For instance, I wrote the article about the steward elections for this week's issue and will write regular updates on it until the election is over. See en:User:Flcelloguy/Signpost for a full list of articles I have written, if you're interested. (Flcelloguy)

Wikizine differs in a lot of aspects of the Signpost. First it is for and about all Wikimedia projects, all languages. Yes, it is almost only about Wikipedia, but if I find something to report about the other projects and is more then welcome. The target audience of Wikizine is in the first place what I call the lower management of Wikimedia. The sysops, bureaucrats, ambassadors and so. Users who are not only interested in there own project and are bridges to the other projects and languages. The hardcore Wikimedians that are not (only) writing articles. The can , I hope, inform there home-wiki about what is going on in the Wikimedia-world. That is the reason that I make Wikizine, so that all projects can know what is going on. I emphasize on the technical aspects of news. That function X is gone or broken, that is important that everybody knows that. That project Y has W articles not. Walter

True. We at the Signpost really don't report on other Wikimedia projects unless it is noteworthy and has consequences for en (for example, we reported on the de German elections with an elections office editing the de Wikipedia article). (Flcelloguy)

My objective is not to write a lot. Short is good. Very short what it is and a hyperlink for more information. Wikzine is mostly about filtering all the news that is going on on all the different places and listing the ones that are useful to know. So that you as the reader of Wikizine do not need no read all those sources listed on Wikizine. Walter

The Signpost seems to be different - Wikizine seems to offer more brief blurbs; we offer an article that tends to be more detailed and comprehensive. (Flcelloguy)

Exactly. There also no need for it. If the signpost writes about something then there is not need for Wikizine the write a lot about it. One sentence and a link to the item of the Signpost is enough. This so far the article contains all the information. Like because it is about the impact of the other projects / languages some more text can be in clued in Wikizine about that topic. --Walter 12:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking - if possible, we link to each other. Flcelloguy(A note?) 20:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I am willing to work together whit the Signpost but I do not see how. Wikizine has almost no original news, that is not the objective of Wikizine. It is about listing the news of the Wikimedia universe. And when I find something that the Signpost does not have I is most likely not really related to the English Wikizine. Walter

What I was thinking was the content we shared - check out this article I wrote for this week's issue. It's basically the same, albeit more expanded, as Wikizine's blurb on it. I just thought that it would be a good idea if we write about the same thing to link to each other. (Flcelloguy)

That Will be difficult. Wikizine and the Signpost both are posted on Monday. Wikizine is mostly send Monday around 12u. It is Sunday late that I do my last round for looking for news. Is there a construction area where you are writing the new Signpost? --Walter 13:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, it might not work out after all logistically. Our planning is done at en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Other. However, we usually don't list the articles we're working on until they're done, which is usually Sunday or Monday. (People already do a particular "section"; for instance, I cover ArbCom elections news, Catherine covers In the News, etc.) I list the articles I am working on at en:User:Flcelloguy/Signpost. Flcelloguy(A note?) 20:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The only original content of Wikizine has is sometimes an editorial. But that will be not very often. Wikizine is not "NPOV", it is my POV. At least the editorials. There will be a new section starting next week;, "Did you know?" about functions that the Wiki supports but many users probably do not know or about how certain projects/languages solve certain problems and so that maybe others can also do it that way. Mostly technical suggestions. --Walter 00:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want details on the technical aspects of the semi-protection, I'd be happy to upload you a screenshot of the protection or provide you with details. Also, I'm sure we'll be covering the semi-protection as well in Monday's issue. Ral probably will be writing it. Thanks! (Flcelloguy)

Yes, I can use a screenshot of the protection . --Walter 13:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. There's another screenshot uploaded by someone else here. Can you also take a look at MediaWiki talk:Confirm purge where I've copied the wording from en? (I added your text in en and reworded some of it; I hope you don't mind.) Happy holidays, and thanks! Flcelloguy(A note?) 20:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the text of it. Only anonymous users get that page and button for some strange reason. --Walter 22:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like your advice. Regarding en:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Walter. Because it seems that I do not get the way how Wikipedia EN works. So far I understand the policy on EN I will not become sysop. At least not for the reason "consensus not reached". Does it make a difference if I redraw or when I keep the procedure going to its conclusion? --Walter 22:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Our standards on en: require that admins have about a 75 percent to 80 percent or higher percentage of "support" votes in order to pass. Bureaucrats close all the RfAs. At your current vote count (31/15/4), unfortunately, it does not look like you will pass. What is the standard at :nl? I would suggest not withdrawing and just letting it run through - most people who withdraw are people who have a "pile-on" of oppose votes - something like 2/30/3 where it is almost impossible to pass and there are a lot more oppose than supports. Your RfA is different - you have twice as many support as oppose, and still have a (though relatively slim) chance of passing. I would recommend trying again no sooner than a month, preferrably three or more months - voters are picky about people who nominate themselves too much. I'll be glad to nominate you next time in a couple of months. In the meantime, spend some more time at en: and I'm sure you'll pass with flying colors. Thanks! Flcelloguy(A note?) 01:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your responds. But I had the impression that to have around 75% support on EN is not enough. You will not become sysop when you have a fair number of oppose votes because otherwise it is "consensus not reached". Is there a value given to the neutral votes? If I apply again for it it will not be soon. After one or two year or so. --Walter 09:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No; it doesn't matter the amount of support or oppose - around 75 percent or 80 percent and above is usually considered consensus. This is up to bureaucrats to decide. There was recently an idea to let bureaucrats extend low-voting RfAs to garner more votes, but that failed. What I mean is that if there is a large number of oppose votes, you can still pass - but you will need a larger amount of support votes. For example, I remember a RfA once where there were 25 or so oppose votes - but more than 100 votes. (Or something like that, I can't remember the exact numbers). Flcelloguy(A note?) 23:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrats usually ignore neutral votes, or only consider them. Again, bureaucrats don't strictly count votes; for close cases (around 75 percent to 80 percent), bureaucrats make the call. Well-explained (or not so well-explained) oppose or neutral votes usually mean more to the bureaucrats, as it's there call in close RfAs. Anything with greater than 80 percent support, excluding neutral votes, will most likely past. Flcelloguy(A note?) 23:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding when to re-apply for adminship at en - goodness, one or two years is a long time! Did you mean one or two months? I usually recommend at the very minimum one month before re-applying, but three months is the ideal number. However, in your case, I would wait until you've garnered at least 1000 edits on en before re-applying. 1000 edits is a sort of unofficial standard, and the vast majority of the 750+ admins had more than 1000 edits when they passed. I can think of only one person who had less than a thousand, and he had some 800. You can use Kate's Tool to count your edits. I would be happy to nominate you in a few months; some people view self-nominations less favorable than "regular" nominations. Flcelloguy(A note?) 23:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

On NL it now so; any user who is at least 3 months active and has at least 300 edits, except those in his own user space, can apply. There are no nominations but sometimes users get a suggestion to do it on there talk page. Any user active at least 1 month and 100 edits can vote. The procedure must run at least one week. You need 75% support to become sysop. Neutral votes do not count but you can give them. The bureaucrat does not make the final decision. Only the % count. The bureaucrat is, just like the sysop, a servant of the community. It is the community that gives the orders. --Walter 09:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That's interesting - there are no restrictions on who can apply on en: but it is highly unlikely someone with less than three months and 1000 edits can pass (again, you're an exceptional case because of great work on nl, meta, and other Wikimedia projects). We recently discussed this on the RfA talk page, and over the past 285 successful RfAs on en, streching back to July, only 10 admins had less than 90 days (three months) of editing when promoted. (I was one of the ten, but I had 79 days and some 2800 edits when promoted.) Also, there are no restrictions on voting at RfA in en: (except that you must be registered), but bureaucrats use their common sense and tend to ignore sock-puppet votes or from people with little or no edits (such as those created during the RfA and the only contributions are to vote on the RfA). We trust our bureaucrats to make the call, so it's not strictly numeric. Flcelloguy(A note?) 23:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Some things that not exist on EN, so far I know; a sysop must provide a emailadress in his preferences or his user page. Every sysop gets automatically a <username>@wikipedia.be forward. Every user is subscribed to a special non-public mailing list only for sysops. Every year every sysop must pas reconfirmation. If no objection, no responds, the stay sysop. Inactive sysops lose the sysop there sysop status after one year. Except for the few honorable sysops. There is no bureaucrat election. Any sysop longer at least one year active can become bureaucrat by request. --Walter 09:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not true - we don't need to provide an email address (I didn't have mine enabled when I was promoted). However, some people have opposed nominations if the candidate doesn't have an email enabled because they contend that sysops need to be able to be contacted by blocked users. However, this isn't an official standard. We also don't get a Wikipedia email - I saw your @wikipedia.be email on OTRS and was wondering about that. I think that the idea of providing email to en: has been brought up before, though (if I remember correctly) and didn't get much support. There's only 70 admins on nl, right? There's over 750 on en, and that would be a hassle creating Wikipedia emails. THere's also no reconfimation process on en. Once a sysop, always a sysop unless you resign it or the Arbitration Committee decides to desysop you (less than 10 such decisions by the ArbCom have occured). It's generally difficult to get someone de-admin; the process is very long. Also, we don't desysop inactive admins either. Both ideas have been brought up but never got much support from the community. Flcelloguy(A note?) 23:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrats are elected on en:. (There's only 20 or so of them.) It's extremely difficult, as around 90 percent support is required. Only one or two have been chosen in the past few months. They are held to high standard because we trust them to decide the RfAs. Flcelloguy(A note?) 23:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have also a question about my English; I know it is far from perfect, I have learnt it from watching television and reading in English. I suppose the sentences sometimes look strange but I always had the impression that it is not really bad, more what strange. Can you give me your impression about it please? Please do not hold back. --Walter 14:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, your English is very well for a speaker of a second language (I presume English isn't your first tongue). I've seen a lot worse English from both native language speakers and non-native speakers. However, it's still apparent that you're not a native English speaker, as some of it isn't perfect and other parts don't flow like what a native English speaker would write. It's not bad, but just doesn't have the flow yet - typical of many people learning English as a second language (ESOL) (I also learned English and my native tongue simultaneously and still work with many people in my ethnic community that learned ESOL.) Some of it is choppy sometimes, and other times the sentences don't fit together well. On the overall, though, I reiterate that your English is very well for someone learning English as a second language already. Keep on improving! Don't hesistate to contact me with any other questions/comments you have. Thanks! Flcelloguy(A note?) 01:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've replied in parts again. Sorry for the long response - I've been busy and haven't checked meta in a while. Thanks! Flcelloguy(A note?) 00:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dario, thanks for the upgrade. I had seen you doing it on the RC. And I have allready a problem :)

When I go to Special:Userrights I can enter a username, example "Walter". Then I have the interface to change my user privileges on meta. But I am unable to access the settings for other wiki's. I try Walter@enwiki or Walter@nlwiki, Walter@nlwikiquote . Even the example of Stewards does not work "There is no user by the name "James@eewiki". " I must doing it wrong but I do not see it. --Walter 21:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I had the same problem ;). You're using the bureaucrat version on Meta - the Steward version is over at Special:Makesysop. Try that link. You can try setting up a temp. bot flag for your account on your local wiki to see if this will work. Datrio 21:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it works now. Very confusing. What does then "User rights management" then? Is that the normal steward inerfase for MediaWiki and is "Makesysop" a hack for wikimedia to control all the wikis, except the Korean cluster? --Walter 22:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I do mean one or to years. I will not be (very) active on EN so I can not become sysop the normal way. In one or two years most of current voters will be gone or have forgot me. There is no hurry.

Those wikipedia emails are only forwards. I can use those because of historic reasons. I would not be surprised if one day the do not work without any warning because Brion or so has changed the name servers for that domain out of local control. --Walter 16:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

hi, if you don't like this, feel free to revert my edit. may i ask for the reason wikisign does not use any wordwarp? in the browser it's not readable that way without a lot of scrolling.. -- &part; 01:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That is because those pages are not intended to be read online there. That are construction pages for wikizine. In this case a old one that has no real purpose anymore. The wordwarp must be done by the email client. Wikizine is be read from the mailing list. By subscription of from the mailing list archive.

If you like to edit those old construction pages you may do so so long you do not change the text and do not change the current version that now is in construction. For now that is Wikizine/2006-03. Greetings, --Walter 01:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen your message on Meta:Babel#Enabling the patrol-function on Meta. I wasn't aware this feature existed. I've just created an account on nl wikipedia to see how it works, and it looks great. May you tell me where I can find more information about this function ? I think I will propose its use on fr, but I'd like to know more about it before. Thank you !

I am only using that function, that is all. This is the page about it Help:Patrolled edit. On NL everybody can mark a edit as patrolled. It can also be setup so that only sysops can do that. That function is far from perfect but I find that it makes it more easy to check the edits. To sell the idea to the FR wikipedia I suggest to wait until it is live on Meta. Then the can come and taka a look here. Can you also put a comment about it on Meta:Babel#Enabling_the_patrol-function_on_Meta ? I need some feedback befor the system developers will change it. --Walter 22:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This page is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you for this link. My intention was precisely to test it on meta before suggesting it on FR :) I left a comment on your proposal. Guillom 08:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I regret having voted yes for you becoming a steward, after having seen your vote for desysoping Waerth on NL. If I had known that before, I would have voted against you. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I regret to have received support of someone who does not give my the freedom to express my opinion in a vote. I know Waerth from the beginning on the dutch wikipedia. I have been extremely loyal for years. I have supported him even when if I looked at it objectively I would not have did if it was someone else. Waerth has received many, many second changes and support in the past, even when he did things where other users would be blocked. Now his credit is up. His behavior is a disgrace for the sysops and the dutch Wikipedia. Waerth has done many good things. That is why he has received so much patience. But his behavior problems are existing for years now. And now the have received a point I can not ignore it anymore. I am loyal but my first duty lays with the dutch wikipedia. I have done this with pain in my hart but it is the right thing to do. This is my responds. I am not interested in a discussion about this. --Walter 21:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Walter, A group of editors and admins refuse to allow a balance of material and links. Gamaliel, Robert McClenon, Jpgordon, JamesMLane, and a few others now own the pages. Any attempts to modify the page is met by thier gang edits. They allow only links to pro kennedy sites, none to negative sites regardless of the wealth of content they may provide. They push their pov on all of the Kennedy pages. It's because of editors and admins like these that Wikipedia is doubted as a source. ie; the New York Times published policy against Wiki as a source. The group refuses to agree to consensus when it is against them. I've now been blocked by Jpgordon in an abuse of admin priv. My act was not vandalism, it's simply not agreeing with their one sided pov. I am not willing to endure any more arb or mediation. These guys are out of control. 24.147.103.146 05:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC) (06:58, 25 January 2006 24.147.103.146 )

Walter, Jpgordon, the admin that blocked me was very, very, involved in a past edit war with myself and others on this same page. Now that he is an admin he blocked me in an abuse of power. I ask that his admin privs be removed due to his abuse.

Complain on your home wiki. I have problems enough on my own wiki. --Walter 17:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a sysop from es.wikipedia. and the community is still voting the bot, because we're think about the use of bots to create articles based in little town in some country is a Botopedia proyect and some users don't approve this. Maybe this bot don't be supported in es. The pool finish in 12th March.

Hi Walter, pequeños pueblos = little towns is a misrepresentation of this bot request. The request is for exactly 342 articles, one per distrito = arrondissement of France. Some of the voting is against micro-stubs, mini-stubs etc, but each of the 342 articles is in fact a full page, so I think there is some misunderstanding of this request - despite explanations by the editors who are in favour. Dlyons493Talk 21:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Walter, I wonder can you advise on this? I understand it, the vote is to decide whether a Bot should be granted a flag - not on whether it should be allowed to run without a flag. The majority vote on the Dlyons493Bot was to allow it to run without a flag - however the closing adminstrator seems to think it should not be run at all, because he says ha sido rechazado para ejercer su trabajo = has been refused permission to perform its work. What do you think should be done? Dlyons493Talk 13:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Here on Meta it is only about to grand or not the "bot-status" to a user account. The only difference is that you can hide bots from the RC. The local community needs to decide about that and then a steward will execute it. That is all.

The question of a bot is allowed on a wiki is a local affair. Whatever the outcome it seems that the request to give bot-status to es:User:Dlyons493 is not supported by ES Wikipedia. The rest is up to ES WIkipedia to decide. --Walter 22:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I was blocked indefinitelly on false accusations that I am user:Bonaparte. Please check and do the proper measures against Sysop en:Mikkalai. I see that is not the first case in which users are blocked by this sysop and no measure have been taken to stop his abuse of power. He uses his sysop power to block innocent people. I am user en:User:Alucard sepetdalv.Alucard sepetdalv 14:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I was also block by this cruel sysop. It's not his first mistake I suppose. He may be obsessed about Bonaparte. Some things must be changed immediately. I am user en:User:Excaliburo and I am 63 years old. I request a check user and immediately unblock like in the previous case. --125.240.149.195 20:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Walter, thanks for this edition.
You might be interested in MediaWiki:Newuserloglog where you can change the block link you mentioned.New user ([[User talk:$1|$2]] | [[Special:Contributions/$1|$3]] | [[Special:Blockip/$1|$4]]) is used if you don't change anything.

I have approval on en as is shown by the request section link and was told to come here to get the bot flag. I have also tested on En and pointed people to the en contribs and nobody has had any objections to the bot. Pegasus1138 23:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why my approval for bot status is on hold. The policy says wait a week for comments, and I've waited nearly a month. Maybe nobody is interested, maybe people think it's too trivial to involve themselves in the discussion, or maybe people could be so offended by me running a bot that they've lost the will to live. I'll never know, and neither will anyone else unless someone actually speaks up. -Mulder416 14:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Walter, just come by to let you know that the author of the first Chinese book about Wikipedia, KaurJmeb, is a girl so you should use her not his in Wikizine. Regards.--H.T. Chien / 眼鏡虎 22:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Shizhao has written that but his sentence was broken and he (?) did not included a indication of the sex of that user. I have no direct contact with Shizhao. And on the user page of KaurJmeb there is no picture of anything else. So I needed to guess. And it seems I was wrong. --Walter 11:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, something along those lines as a subcat is probably a good idea, and maybe {{historical}} on them all as well. I'll keep working at it and see if I can figure out a system that will make sense. --Spangineer[en][es](háblame) 18:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

hi walter, after waerth's de-steward i remained the only checkuser on nl. awaiting a more definite situation i gave you, as a fellow steward and bureaucrat on nl, the flag, same as the situation before. groetjes, oscar 23:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)